Jump to content

Conclusion Of Skill Tree Pts - March 8 - 4 Pm Pdt


392 replies to this topic

#281 Trev Firestorm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:33 AM

View PostProsperity Park, on 10 March 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

The only reason people are complaining about cost is that you cannot swap modules around. You have to level Mechs on their own now. People felt that module swapping was an intended feature of the last system that allowed people to circumvent the cost of buying modules for all your Mechs . Players with Huge Garages now have to level their mechs up individually instead of spending frustrating time swapping and managing modules to save Cbills.

The new system, at 5.6 mil per Mech, is fair to me. I am one of those Huge Garage players, and I still think it is fine. But, I must be on an island... Since I think this change is for the better

This further assumes we all use modules regularly. The problem is we need cbills to unlock what we already earned under the old system and are being blocked from doing so, which is simply unacceptable.

#282 Crockdaddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSaint Louis

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:49 AM

View PostProsperity Park, on 08 March 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:

Yup, I am gullible. I like to customize my Mechs, and if that makes me gullible then you might need to look that word up in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with customization. If you are referring to costs, remember that a fully kitted Mech requires at least four modules and all of the GXP needed to unlock those modules in the first place.

New players don't need to grind for their GXP anymore. New players do not need to buy 3 Mechs in order to just level 1 anymore. But I guess you don't care about new player experience, do you? You think everyone should just throw cash at the game to convert their XP into GXP for the current system don't you? To be clear you do not support new players or free players. It's a good thing the new system does though.


This is a fairly naive statement. I expect if the price per mech (for skill tree unlocks) was cut some more it would help but if you expect variety from current standards I doubt that will happen. It will be largely how it is now just with a new skin. For guys like myself with 350 to 400 modules and having everything already unlocked for years now this won't be a big deal. I will zero in on 12 useful mechs and go from there.

I do like the fact you don't need 2 crappy chassis to get the one you want but mark my words you will not have a great deal of variation you think will happen.

If I end up wrong then great. I just find it hard to believe. The meta will shift and settle just as it always does.

#283 Arkhangel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 2
  • Mercenary Rank 2
  • 1,205 posts
  • LocationBritish Columbia

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:52 AM

View PostKoniving, on 10 March 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

On this topic:

The "skills we don't want to get ones we do want" is, to a point, a good thing to minimize how many 'min/max' must-haves you can possibly get so that there can still be variety between this chassis/variant and that identical chassis/variant used by someone else. Otherwise what is the point of a skill tree if there's only one blatantly obvious set of choices to get with no 'cost/effect' balance to weigh in?

What isn't good, is "spend enough cbills to buy 5 to 7 mechs to get your maximum number of unlocks for a SINGLE MECH".
Or for that matter... spending cbills... What is XP, if not the currency we need to earn to unlock things? Why are cbills tied to it?

If PGI wants a cbill sink, there's far better ways to do it. This is NOT one of them.

Side note: Champion mechs in theory would be made much more valuable due to their XP bonuses.
But that means nothing when skill unlocks also require a cbill value.

Koniving, it's 5.6mil per mech cost wise for skills. that isn't "five to seven mechs".. that's a Dragon or Quickdraw. One heavy, maybe two lights. Still not that much, I could easily earn that in a day or two, and that's cheaper than most modules were, and you could have the benefits of TWELVE of them for that cost.

#284 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:53 AM

View PostTrev Firestorm, on 10 March 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

This further assumes we all use modules regularly. The problem is we need cbills to unlock what we already earned under the old system and are being blocked from doing so, which is simply unacceptable.

That means we still have a whole 11 days to earn! 2 months of explicit warning was enough for us to get a few drop decks ready at least, even for the stingiest of module users. Cutting the price almost in half helped out quite a bit as well with that advance warning.

#285 Montbard

    Member

  • Pip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 12 posts

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:57 AM

View PostTrev Firestorm, on 10 March 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

This further assumes we all use modules regularly. The problem is we need cbills to unlock what we already earned under the old system and are being blocked from doing so, which is simply unacceptable.

Exactly. I do not use modules except for the few ones I got with different packs or events along the years. So for me, even if I stick with the 60 SP or so that it takes to get my 100+ mastered mechs on par with what I have now, it is still a huge c-bill sink.

#286 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:59 AM

View PostKoniving, on 10 March 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

On this topic:

The "skills we don't want to get ones we do want" is, to a point, a good thing to minimize how many 'min/max' must-haves you can possibly get so that there can still be variety between this chassis/variant and that identical chassis/variant used by someone else. Otherwise what is the point of a skill tree if there's only one blatantly obvious set of choices to get with no 'cost/effect' balance to weigh in?
Agreed.

Quote

What isn't good, is "spend enough cbills to buy 5 to 7 mechs to get your maximum number of unlocks for a SINGLE MECH".
This is grossly wrong. You're looking at what 6 million cbills to skill up a mech. That's way cheaper than buying the 3 mechs you used to have to buy to do that. It's not a good thing, but it's not that bad either.

Still:

Quote

Or for that matter... spending cbills... What is XP, if not the currency we need to earn to unlock things? Why are cbills tied to it?

If PGI wants a cbill sink, there's far better ways to do it. This is NOT one of them.

Side note: Champion mechs in theory would be made much more valuable due to their XP bonuses.
But that means nothing when skill unlocks also require a cbill value.

I do agree skills should just require XP, not cbills.

I don't see Champion mechs being "much more valuable" because ultimately, we make LOTS of XP and have literally nothing else to use it on. So... yeah. *shrugs* Even as someone who rebuilds mechs daily, XP is essentially unlimited.

#287 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:04 AM

Taxing people with trash to get good skills is not a good system.

Why?
  • Because it's boring: "Yeah, I unlocked a worthless skill so I can eventually grind to a good skill"
  • It is confusing to new players since they won't really understand why they need to take trash to get good skills
  • It does nothing to promote roles or build diversity. Everyone is still going to take the same good skills - now, it just requires more meaningless grind to get there. That is NOT good game design.
Making the "one good choice" more expensive NEVER achieves game balance. All it does is delay people's ability to get "the one good choice" so they have to grind longer against people who already have that ability, and discourage new players for the same reason. It also does nothing to promote diverse builds, roles, etc. It's like believing that doubling the price of a required Magic card in a given format will "balance" the format and that card - it never works.

#288 Crockdaddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSaint Louis

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:09 AM

I do like the idea of a skill tree just as anyone who has played Path of Exile would. I just don't think it will work anything remotely like that in making mechs much different from what they are now. I saw a suggestion by Nlghtblrd earlier that for less effective mechs that maybe we should bump up the number of nodes available to weaker mechs. Otherwise the high geometry mechs will continue to rampage as much if not more than before.

#289 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,274 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:17 AM

View PostCrockdaddy, on 10 March 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:

I do like the idea of a skill tree just as anyone who has played Path of Exile would. I just don't think it will work anything remotely like that in making mechs much different from what they are now. I saw a suggestion by Nlghtblrd earlier that for less effective mechs that maybe we should bump up the number of nodes available to weaker mechs. Otherwise the high geometry mechs will continue to rampage as much if not more than before.


But then you have a bunch of mechs that are dog **** before any leveling and then it takes a longer grind to get them up to par. They really need to balance the mechs aside from the skill tree, which is obvious, some people have just given up on waiting for PGI to actually do that.

You also have to rely on PGI arbitrarily handing out bonus nodes, that has *********** written all over it.

#290 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:25 AM

View PostWintersdark, on 10 March 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

This is grossly wrong. You're looking at what 6 million cbills to skill up a mech. That's way cheaper than buying the 3 mechs you used to have to buy to do that. It's not a good thing, but it's not that bad either.

Still:

I do agree skills should just require XP, not cbills.

Exaggeration, though from what I last read, it was going to cost effectively "3 modules." Modules ranged from 2,000,000 to 6,000,000 each (so 6 to 18 million).
6 mil is still technically 3 modules so I suppose it wasn't wrong.

We do make decent amounts of XP, but GXP has always been on the slow side. And those of us who make good XP usually have access to premium time. Without that 50% bonus to XP/GXP earnings, I'm not so sure we'd be as "we make lots of XP". Myself I'm sitting on over 450 days of premium time left so I'm not feeling it, but imagine being newer or without it?

View PostArkhangel, on 10 March 2017 - 09:52 AM, said:

Koniving, it's 5.6mil per mech cost wise for skills. that isn't "five to seven mechs".. that's a Dragon or Quickdraw. One heavy, maybe two lights. Still not that much, I could easily earn that in a day or two, and that's cheaper than most modules were, and you could have the benefits of TWELVE of them for that cost.

Exaggeration; also the compiled numbers for the original idea PGI peddled out in the first PTS for the skill tree was estimated at the high ends to be 16 to 20 mil.

Also: 227 mechs to level up from scratch. I'm gonna be shelling enough to buy every mech ever just to bring them to 'master' status.

#291 Zainadin

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 73 posts
  • Location5o Cal

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:33 AM

two just TWO iterations of the test server.... JUST 2!!! the energy draw system which was abandoned had 4 iterations! WTF yes the whales and comp players are unhappy, the only ones not are the white knights who swim in the brown sea of 'rear-end' kissing.

Edited by Zainadin, 10 March 2017 - 10:34 AM.


#292 Blockpirat

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Corsair
  • The Corsair
  • 155 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationBavaria, Germany

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:52 AM

I've already written several posts in this thread. By now it should be clear that I'm a huge whale and Mech collector who despises the additional grind imposed by the skill tree changes.

Here's a very personal video I felt compelled to make given the situation:









It doesn't mean that I will never play the game again. It doesn't mean that I won't keep following MWO development.

But what it does mean is that a lot of faith in PGI has been lost and that they won't be getting any more money from me.

#293 Wintersdark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,375 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:59 AM

View PostKoniving, on 10 March 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

Exaggeration, though from what I last read, it was going to cost effectively "3 modules." Modules ranged from 2,000,000 to 6,000,000 each (so 6 to 18 million).
6 mil is still technically 3 modules so I suppose it wasn't wrong.

We do make decent amounts of XP, but GXP has always been on the slow side. And those of us who make good XP usually have access to premium time. Without that 50% bonus to XP/GXP earnings, I'm not so sure we'd be as "we make lots of XP". Myself I'm sitting on over 450 days of premium time left so I'm not feeling it, but imagine being newer or without it?


Exaggeration; also the compiled numbers for the original idea PGI peddled out in the first PTS for the skill tree was estimated at the high ends to be 16 to 20 mil.

Also: 227 mechs to level up from scratch. I'm gonna be shelling enough to buy every mech ever just to bring them to 'master' status.

Yes, but keep in mind a few things:

(and again, I'm not saying this is all perfect and how things should be, but just trying to inject some sanity into the discussion)

1) Mastery in the new system != Mastery in the current system.

After all, you could put your mechs to where they are right now at a fairly minimal cost. Just needing skills like Hard Brake, Anchor Turn, Speed Tweak - you're basically just buying one skill tree to cover all the skills you currently have. It's about 1.5m cbills per mech to have comparable performance to a mastered mech without modules now. I get your position, as I also have zounds of mechs, and I have very few modules, so it's a totally relevant point for me (I've 2m cbills on hand, and will get maybe 40m cbills from module refunds - that's not going to cover much!)

So, the skill tree changes are, for me, fundamentally similar to what would happen if they didn't remove the current tree, but just added LOTS of new skills. After all, nobody had Velocity skills, Laser Duration, or Jump Jet Lift Speed skills right now.

We're not going to be particularly worse off compared to live. It's just that there's a lot of new potential possible.

2) I'm pretty much ignoring GXP; is it even going to be a thing? In the current system, GXP is critical as it's required to unlock things like modules for mechs. This SEVERELY curtails a new player's ability to get modules on their mechs. There are no GXP requirements on the Skill Tree; it's all just regular XP. You get 'em just playing the mech. So, it's pretty much a mixed bag. In some ways it's harder for a new player(overwhelming number of skills, for example, or having to buy three variants, longer road to mastery for maximum competitiveness), in others it's easier(no GXP requirement, single mech mastery).

So, compared to live, while (again) it's not a good thing and I agree it should have NO cbill cost, it's also not a horrifically bad one.

It will be better for some, worse for others, depending on a players specific position: how many mechs do they have vs. how many modules, for example, as players with a higher module:mech ratio will be better off. But really, given that you can get all the skills we currently have in ~30 sp, it's not so bad. We just get more stuff we can earn.

#294 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,343 posts

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:02 AM

View PostZainadin, on 10 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

WTF yes the whales and comp players are unhappy

DON'T forget the Non-Meta, Casual Players! A bunch of us are ticked off as well! :angry:

~Mr. D. V. "You forgot about us!" Devnull

#295 TK Romero

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 56 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:15 AM

I consider myself to be a casual player since closed beta and have invested lots of time and money on MWO. It doesn't entitle me to an opinion, I do however feel I can cast a vote or say on the skill tree system like everyone else even if it's wrong or different to how someone else may feel.

Personally the ST system is an open welcome to not have to grind through three different mech varients to master them. Granted only two of the three needed to be basiced to master the third/primary. But lets be honest, some folk just can't leave something half done and that's the boat I fall in and am having issues with. I have 130+ mechs, all IS because I'm weird like that, of which I've mastered about half or so as a casual player since closed beta. So I relate to the notions of 'starting over' and the new 'grind'. But a F2P game tends to be a grind that I am aware of. I'm just hoping that the time to get back to where things were before isn't to involved.

I liked the comment about how this is like WoW and all mechs just got a level increase. I would like to be able to start from where I last left off to get to the new max level without being hindered. Frankly with the HXP being used as a currency to unlock nodes without using cbills and new accrued xp. Also wished that nodes that are based off of current modules and new skills would be the ones that cost cbills and xp to unlock. But it doesn't have to be perfect to how I see it.

I am bummed out that the tinkering aspect of the game is going to be harder to do when a mech has already had skills applied. It's actually a lot of fun to tinker, drop in testing grounds, blow stuff up, and repeat. I like that removing nodes doesn't cost anything and that they are unlocked forever when removed. I don't like having to use xp again to reuse if desired and wished they acted like modules currently where they can be added and removed freely. The way I play I would most likey unlock the entire available skill tree just to freely move around based on different loadouts.

Lots and lots of comments on the skill tree layout. I like linear and less nodes to reduce clutter and reducing max sp to compensate. Tinkering on both PTS iterations made me feel like the skill tree was huge.

Really hoping PGI will take a good hard look with the skill tree system as it has real potential for both new and existing players.

#296 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:24 AM

View PostKoniving, on 10 March 2017 - 10:25 AM, said:

Exaggeration, though from what I last read, it was going to cost effectively "3 modules." Modules ranged from 2,000,000 to 6,000,000 each (so 6 to 18 million).
6 mil is still technically 3 modules so I suppose it wasn't wrong.
Exaggeration; also the compiled numbers for the original idea PGI peddled out in the first PTS for the skill tree was estimated at the high ends to be 16 to 20 mil.

Also: 227 mechs to level up from scratch. I'm gonna be shelling enough to buy every mech ever just to bring them to 'master' status.

If you take a serious look at what modules people put on their mechs, you are typically looking at 15 million as a bare bones utilization of all 5 of those slots (master slot included). The 2 most common mech modules listed in these threads are radar deprivation and seismic sensors. Each costs 6 million c-bill. Add to that the, the weapons modules, each coming in at 3 million, plus the "master" module slot. For the sake of pulling cost down, we'll say a 3rd weapon module is used. That gets us to 21 million c-bills to max out one mech without touching consumables. For the sake of addressing competitiveness, lets put this in the context of a single drop deck.
If you want to max out modules for 1 drop deck, we are realistically looking at 21 million c-bills x 4 mechs, or 84 million c-bills for one drop deck to be maxed out. This does not even touch the need to buy and level up extra variants along the way.

In the new system, it costs 5.46 million to maximize on mech, multiply that by 4 to fill a drop deck, and we are at 21.84 million, or roughly a quarter of the cost with the benefit of zero extra mechs to buy and level along the way.

so, assuming that all future mechs in the current system will use only those same modules as those 4 mechs from the drop deck, we can safe assert 84 million is where we can establish a "meeting" point of costs.
81 million divided by 5.46 million = 15.38 fully mastered mechs int he new system.

From this clear mathematical comparison set in the context of maximizing mech competitiveness in the context of the smallest number of mechs for a Faction Play, we can see that a new player can fully master 15 mechs for the same cost as the current module system costs. In order to make this example as directly translatable as possible, that means that the player would be required to choose no more than 5 different chassis to maintain this zero point of costs. The new system, however, would allow 15 different mech chassis to be purchased, rather than forcing 3 of a chassis to max out a mech.

What we can derive from this:
IF a new player in the new system restricts himself to only 5 chassis, each with 3 variants (like the current system of mastery), He can have 15 mechs for the same cost before he the old system starts to show a cost benefit over the new system.

Realistically, the new system allows a player to buy 15 different chassis rather than restricting them to 5 for maxing out these mechs.

The claim that the new system's costs are unreasonable can only really gain any traction as early as the 16th mech purchase assuming that the first 15 mechs were all from the same 5 chassis, and also that no other modules would be purchased to suit address possible build out differences.

Conclusion-
Those with big stables are right that this is more costly for them, but only after reaching an absolute minimum threshold of 81 c-bills in module upgrades. That 81 million c-bills is just short of 4 complete drop decks of maximized mechs in the new system, none of which require "unwanted" variants along the way and also allows for a wide variety of modules to be added tailored to that mech rather than being locked down to the initial 20 modules exclusively.

Baseline comparison
If we use a single drop deck to create a baseline cost for comparison of maximized mechs both systems (4 mechs with 5 modules each in the old system, yielding an 81 million c-bill cost), using the restrictions of the old system (3 variants to master), we find that 15 mechs can be maximized in thew new system under those restrictions.

Realistically, new players would likely purchase a wider variety of mechs as they would not have to deal with the rule of 3 and would also not be limited by the set module abilities of those chosen for the first 4 mechs.

Large stable owners are really only affected after 81 million c-bills assuming they are rotating the same 8 mech modules and 12 weapon modules (that cost rises as module number increases to account for build variety).

With these numbers, it is hard to argue a hugely detrimental effect on those with competitive stables if they have been maintaining at least 1 drop deck worth of maxmized mechs as they, by refund of those modules alone, will be able to maximize almost 4 times as many mechs in the new system.

Those who have actually been maximizing by adding nodules and not just XP mastering mechs, will be able to fully maximize almost 4 mechs for each single maximized mech right now.

It is true that in the new system, those who have no c-bills will not be able to immediately return all of their mechs to a comparable amount of progress to the old system, just be aware that the new system isn't a bigger cost sink until after you upgrade those first 15 mechs, more than enough mechs to effectively compete and earn c-bills for your less utilized builds.

P.S. in the case you really wanted to low-ball the module costs, we could assume 3 mech modules at 2 million plus 2 weapon modules at 3 million, meaning a total of 12 million in the cheapest possible module layout for most mechs, totalling 48 million c-bills. That still provides for the max upgrade o 8.79 mechs in the new system, or enough for 2 complete drop dechs and a 9th mech 80% complete. Be aware that these utilize the much less desirable modules which already have a low probability of being used together, but provides a basement level cost of maximized mech drop dech.

#297 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 3,831 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:55 AM

It seems to me the CBill cost is really dividing the population between the "moduled" and the "unModuled"

For those of us that buy modules and keep a decent percentage of our mechs ready to play with said modules, this is a financial break, not a burden in the sense that one would have to spec, and then respec a mech *ALOT* to equal the 12-15 million one would pay to have modules in a mech all the time... (i.e. little module swapping).

FYI - My estimate of 12-15 Mill is from 2 Weap mods + 1 Radar Derp/Seismic + Zoom/Sensor/etc... It could be 18Mil for some as I will equip both Derp *and* Seismic.

So apart from the *NOTABLE* time-sink to respec mechs, yeah, most module whales will not be hurting here.

This is not presented as a taunt by any stretch, just trying to offer a differing view for those wondering why *everyone* is enraged.

I've already stated numerous times that they should just have a one-time gift of 91 skill points per variant owned (not each copy of a variant) for each mastered mech in a players garage, just to avoid a lot of this rage. Give Elited Mechs 75-78 SP too.

I think a lot of the old guard would have found this change a lot more palatable if their existing collection was not so adversely affected.

Edit: /Facepalm due to SuperFunkTron making several similar points and beating me too it.

Edited by MovinTarget, 10 March 2017 - 11:56 AM.


#298 Whiskey Peddler

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 20 posts

Posted 10 March 2017 - 12:05 PM

View Postprocess, on 10 March 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

I can't claim to know PGI's business model or where most of their revenue comes from, but anecdotally the vast majority of my previous real-money purchases were in the form of mech packs. I think that's going to change a lot under the new system.


On this we totally agree. I however do spend money with PGI via "premium" time to buy new mechs. When I find a mech I like with the new system, use the TBR for example, I will buy one and kit it for lasers, buy another and kit it for brawl, buy another and kit it for long range. I will use cbills for this instead of cash/MC, BUT I will continue paying for premium time to shorten the time it takes to buy a mech.

You are right, these decisions might affect mech purchase. Maybe they will cost more when they are released. Who knows. I am however excited for the new system, just might take a bit for the wrinkles to be ironed out.

#299 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 10 March 2017 - 12:23 PM

After thousands of posts in PTS forum and 16 pages in this reaction thread, I would say the only language PGI understands is money. I see some people cancelling their orders, which I think is a good way to send a message. Personally, I have no orders to cancel, so the only way I can send a message is to stop playing, or play less than before.

This whole ordeal is turning into a nice and warm dumpster fire. But I'm sure a lot of people who are angry now will forget about this when PGI releases some new guns. And then buy the Mad Cat Mk II.

#300 Edmar Fecler

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 43 posts
  • LocationNorth Alabama

Posted 10 March 2017 - 12:34 PM

Dear PGI,

Congradulations. You've hammered in the nails to MWO's coffin.

sincerely,
the MWO community.





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users